Participants with post-secondary education saw a 57% decrease in cardiovascular risk after following the diet, and those earning more than €40,000 (about $47,000) a year saw a 61% decrease. Those of lower socioeconomic status saw no benefits.

…The foods eaten by subjects of this study varied widely depending on their socioeconomic status. The more educated the participants, the more likely they were to report eating a broader variety of vegetables, plus more whole grains and organic vegetables. More educated participants had daily diets that contained higher proportions of monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil and nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and fiber. Meanwhile, higher-income study subjects ate more whole grain breads, fruits, nuts, and fish, and fewer meat products than subjects with lower incomes.

Those who are wealthy and educated are, on the whole, more intelligent than those who are not.

Most people exist in a simple world where if you take a peasant, “educate” him and give him an office job, he is suddenly equivalent to one of these people. He is not; he is still a peasant, albeit one with some skills. This means that he will find himself out of his depth on a regular basis, and make bad decisions because he is not competent at the level of critical thinking and analysis, which are higher IQ skills, nor is he morally oriented toward leadership, a trait which seems correlated with some in the higher IQ registers.

But as even dietary differences show, there is more to it than that. Those with higher intelligence know different things, and are generally healthier as a result. They can discern what they should do, and can interpret simple instructions such as the Mediterranean Diet in more accurate ways, much as they are better with law, philosophy, literature and art.

PSF: You mentioned previously that a lot of your influences happen to be working class rock and rollers like AC/DC. How do you reconcile that with your aristocratic bearings?

LB: Well, we’ve always said that rock and roll is just like anything else — it’s something that’s better done by the upper classes, as is almost every other enterprise of human endeavor.

That definitely applies to the Mediterranean Diet, and education at least.

Where this gets complicated is that caste has multiple layers. Looking at the IQ distribution charts that make up the basis of the book The Bell Curve, we can see that roughly 13% of our population is above 120 IQ points, which educators who are honest about this issue consider the minimum for a college education.

Among those, less than one percent are above 130 points, which is where people stop trying to earn money and start trying to change history through the battle of ideas. All of our great works of art and philosophy, and most of our innovations, come from people in this group. When these are also of high moral caliber, they provide our best leaders.

Those who have high moral caliber and high intelligence, as opposed to what we might call “medium-high” or “middlebrow” intelligence, are those who naturally should rule a society because they are more competent.

A survey published in this month’s Economic Journal proves the point perfectly. Two economists, Professor Gregory Clark and Dr Neil Cummins, have studied 634 upper-middle-class surnames – including Bazalgette, Bigge, Nottidge and Pepys – from 1850 until today. Their findings show how extremely sticky wealth is. Five generations apart, the descendants of the rich of 1850 remain rich today. They are more likely than others to live longer, attend Oxbridge, have nice houses and become professionals.

Naturally, this offends the middlebrow, who tend to be of the Vaisya caste and thus talented with mercantile concerns, but essentially morally oblivious and not capable of seeing through the long-term consequences of their actions. This is why every society dies the same way: the middlebrow merchants, who are accustomed to manipulating people and understand their hidden desires, unite with the proles to overthrow the upper castes.

As we see with every revolution, including the French and Russian revolutions, this initiates a cycle called the Napoleonic arc where the greater incompetence of the middlebrow and prole army leads to a less prosperous civilization, and then the only way to unite the failing nation-state is by perpetual warfare, which means ideological warfare to spread the People’s Revolution elsewhere. Naturally this too ends in disaster, and the states tend to collapse much like post-Revolutionary French government or the Soviet Union.

Ironically, the American Revolution succeeded because it overthrew a king, but not the natural upper-middle-class (high Kshatriya or low Brahmin) aristocracy in America. That was overthrown during the Civil War, when the industrial and as a result, prole-heavy, North invaded the agrarian South in order to plunder its riches and assert the lower-caste Northern “elites” as rulers instead of the natural elites of the South.

They used race as a justification in that war; to the North, the war was hyped for a Gulf of Tonkin type pretext based in the injustice of slavery. To the South, where slaves were prized and often loved, slavery was the natural extension of European feudalism, which since it had been made illegal and replaced with legal systems, could only live on through chattel slavery. In this case, the serfs were black because they could endure the heat of the fields where people whose ancestors came from near the Arctic Circle could not.

Caste relates to race because to the Left they are the same issue. The Left has one and only one idea, “equality,” and they seek places to demonstrate it. This means overthrowing upper castes, or racial or ethnic groups whose higher IQs make them de facto upper castes in a mixed-race or mixed-ethnic society. To the Left, miscegenation and diversity are weapons for overthrowing that upper caste.

Right-wing movements succeed when they emphasize putting society into order so that people are more prosperous, which includes having the invisible leadership of a caste hierarchy, such that the wealth and power belong to the most competent, instead of the actors, celebrities, athletes, politicians, scam artists, merchants and poseurs we have handed it to now, who are neither morally nor intellectually competent to wield it.

On the other hand, the Right fails when it accepts the Leftist proposition that caste is not important and must be inverted, with the lower in power and the naturally higher subjugated, which is the eternally emergent argument from the idea of “equality.” If the Alt Right wants to succeed, it will have to talk about caste and “huwhite” ethnic hierarchy as well as race.

In the middle of the 1990s, when the lifestyle septic tank of popular culture had discovered there was such a thing as email and message boards, OJ Simpson crept back in the news for his blunt force method of wife disposal.

One message traveled around the world more times than the influenza virus. It had about a dozen OJ Simpson jokes that everyone just had to open and read immediately. Certainly the trial was a farce. Certainly OJ did it. Most of us would go to jail instantly and permanently if we had made matrimonial mulch the way the former football star did.

But OJ was special — politically special. Would a mob be primed to riot on our behalf if the verdict went the wrong way? Nope. It was obvious that a cheesy, has-been celebrity was getting away with murder on the basis of his wealth and race. But this was not what led the average, rational person to laugh at bad humor and forward it to their fifty bestest buddies at least fifty times.

The OJ Jokes were defeatist humor. People feel they are constrained and deliberately held back when they have to interact and compete with minorities. And what galls many people the most is that there are whole classes of people who can’t be criticized. So when OJ went for a ride in the Bronco, he went from a protected minority to a brutal man who hacked up women. Here was a minority who was now fair game.

So all the jokes about OJ became a steam valve. Those denied Freedom of Association by EEO rules or Affirmative Action policies now had a way to vent their rage. This worked around political correctness and ideological scene-policing. OJ jokes were euphemisms for what people really wanted to talk about: how diversity really sucks, and we cannot criticize it, so we are a beaten, frustrated population.

History may not repeat itself, but it can certainly rhyme. OJ Simpson was caught involved in a shady sports memorabilia deal in Vegas and got sent to the aforementioned can. Now, after several years of uneventful incarceration, The Juice is back. He’s 70 and on way too many no-fly lists to sprint through the airport, but he did ace the parole hearing.

Simpson appeared as inmate No. 1027820, dressed in blue jeans and a blue button-down shirt, in a stark hearing room. Displaying contrition, Simpson told the hearing: “I’ve done it as well and as respectfully as anybody can. I think if you talk to the wardens they’ll tell you. “I’ve not complained for nine years. All I’ve done is try to be helpful… and that’s the life I’ve tried to live because I want to get back to my kids and family.” Simpson’s daughter, Arnelle, 48, pleaded with the board to release him. “We just want him home”.

Now the (((Goldmans))) have won a huge civil judgement against him for the wrongful death of their son Jody,* oops, I mean Ronald, so at least we won’t see him spending his golden years strutting too much. Which is a blessed relief. It will spare us a 50-joke email featuring OJ Simpson’s misconceptions about Viagra and Rogaine.

* — Jody was the generic name given by soldiers to the guy attempting to nail their wives while they were away on deployment. You know, Joe the Guy… Joe D. Guy… Jody.

BART Police said witnesses reported 50 to 60 juveniles jumping the fare gates and going to the platform. After boarding the train, the juveniles “committed multiple strong-arm robberies of bags and cell phones,” according to a police report. At least two people were hurt and were treated by paramedics for facial and head injuries. BART said there had been similar robberies on trains in the days prior to this incident with juveniles running onto trains and quickly fleeing, but not with as many people as in Saturday’s robbery…

Now logic would dictate that naming, blaming and shaming these adorable little turd blossoms would work wonders in preventing these not-so-great train robberies. Initially, this was the preferred course of action for BART.

“We are basically getting all the surveillance images that we have, and we’re going to be sharing them with Oakland Police, the schools, Oakland Housing Authority to try to identify the suspects,” said Trost.

Meanwhile, the criminality continued unabated. A BART security guard had to serve and protect on some of the local teens to prevent further larceny on July 6.

A teen in a group of around a dozen allegedly snatched an iPhone from a woman as the train was approaching the Coliseum Station. They all ran from the train but an off-duty security guard witnessed the crime and followed them onto the platform, demanding the phone back. That’s when 62-year-old Leonard Brown was punched and kicked by several young people but did manage to get the phone back.

The BART is a totally unsafe way to get to work. It is being overrun by these “youths” and “teens.”

In the last three months, there have been at least three robberies on BART involving groups of teenagers. “I think people are genuinely concerned — they are fearful about the stories that have come out about the recent attacks, the assaults, the thefts,” said Debora Allen, who is a member of the BART Board of Directors.

So why not name them and shame them? It’s ¡RACISM! all the way down…

Allen told us the agency issued an explanation for why it is being tight-lipped about the thefts. “To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,” she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.” According to a memo distributed to BART Directors, the agency won’t do a press release on the June 30 theft because it was a “petty crime” that would make BART look “crime ridden.” Furthermore, it would “unfairly affect and characterize riders of color, leading to sweeping generalizations in media reports.”

Poor San Fran. They face a Hobson’s Choice. Either (A) They can effectively use up-to-date technology to arrest these criminals, or (B) they can virtue-signal their concern over how riders of color and misunderstood youths are portrayed by the media. So clearly the passengers can just get used to this being a part of life in the modern city. It’s just how misunderstood youths from Oakland Housing Projects express their sadness and alienation from mainstream society. And let’s just face it. People text and play on their cell phones too darn often. We’ll just scare Whitey straight on this one.

No. Let’s just dump the trash on the table here. Black youths from Oakland have just been offered the opportunity to go on a Honkie Mofo Hunt with no bag limit. The BART cares more about “compassion” and “tolerance” than they do about delivering live and unmolested passengers. And that’s the thing about tolerant understanding. You get a hell of a lot more of whatever it is that you tolerate or understand. Crime is typically a shortcut to getting things you’d otherwise have to bust your butt and earn. Let people take a convenient shortcut, and you don’t have to be Enrico Fermi to puzzle out that it will soon become the new beaten path.

Crap like this is why Middle Class White People are fleeing California as rapidly as they can save up the down payment to elsewhere. It’s not bad enough that the Bay Area has unaffordable housing. Or that many of the city schools rank worse than 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 compared to similar schools. Or thatthe high-tech bubble that has been the backbone of The Bay Area Economy may well be breaking.

The BART has made a callous decision that innocent civilians riding metro rapid transit to work every day now matter less than their PR strategy. They will suffer in silence. They will suffer in government-enforced silence. There is at least one color of lives in California that do not matter. There will be a day when BART doesn’t have riders. There will be a day when there is nowhere along the BART lines that is a destination worth traveling to. These thugs on the train are hastening that day. The cuckery of The Tolerance Tyrants in the face of utter antinomian brigandage will hasten that day. This road to Hell will be paved with Dead White Taxpayers. It’s construction will not be televised.

Sometimes, anti-racist allies talk in an “us vs. them” framework when they discuss race, with the “us” being POC and anti-racist allies and the “them” being racist people. That’s an oversimplification of centuries of racism, and it also avoids one simple truth.White people always benefit from institutionalized racism, no matter how anti-racist your ideologies may be. You can’t disconnect yourself completely from the racism from which you benefit, and recognizing that is a large step in rejecting white privilege.

The woman who wrote this is more of a Leftist than she is African-American. Her message: anyone who rises above the level of mediocrity that is comfortable for the crowd will be destroyed, whether that is economic or political. You will not be forgiven for having won, which will be re-styled as oppression by those who did something silly and lost instead. Revenge, resentment and envy are your future.

Conservatives need to realize that no matter what we do, the Leftist response will be the same, which is to continue the charade of victimhood and self-assertion so they can help themselves to our money.

During the past decade, a theory was advanced on the Left to counter the rising observation that “equality” programs in fact enforce inequality by transferring money and power from the thriving to the rest.

To destabilize claims of reverse racism, the Left invented “intersectionality,” or the idea that discrimination is only important if done by those in power, and that power can be assessed through the intersection of race and social status. By this calculus, only whites — presumably in power, something called “privilege” — can be racist.

In the loftier precincts of progressive journalism, higher education, and the non-profit world, those hecklers tend to be proponents of “intersectionality,” a voguish theory purporting that power is inextricably linked to aspects of identity like race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and that an individual’s “marginalization” is thus determined by their accumulation of various traits.

To a conservative, equality is not a fundamental question; fairness, however, is important, and it states that those who engage in productive behavior toward the realization of shared goals should be rewarded while those who do not work toward those goals should either not be rewarded or experience negative consequences.

This forms an opposite to control, or the idea that everyone does the same thing as commanded, because it requires that individuals understand the goal and the methods used to reach it. In fairness, which is part of cooperation, the question is not who started behind — because people are unequal in ability and status by nature — but how well they were treated.

For this reason, a conservative sees reverse racism as just as bad as racism, even if it is intended as an over-compensation.

But what is white intersectionality? There are a collection of traits of Western Europeans that together provide a point for our position that fairness is needed not just at the individual level, but the civilizational level, which means we have the right to dwell alone separated from all others:

Uniqueness. Western Europeans have a culture like none other on Earth, and they have different ideas from the rest about how civilization should be organized and people should relate to one another.

Minority. Globally, Western Europeans are 2% of the population and occupy a relatively small area in Western Europe and North America. Compared to Africa, Asia and South America, we are tiny. We are also highly sociable and so unlikely to defend our minority position.

Perceptive. Our population is “sensitive” in the intersection of thoughtful, able to distinguish fine details, contemplative and reflective. We are easily distracted by new ideas and can be misled quickly.

A target. Any group which has achieved success on its own terms despite a lack of vast natural wealth will naturally be a target for the wealth it has produced, especially if it is also highly sociable.

Taking the intersection of these, we see a population which needs defending not from specific “racism” but from the desire of the rest of the world to be us, conquer us and occupy us. In that view, white racism is defensive, where reverse racism is punitive, and this suggests we need to throw out the entire “racism” debate and focus on nationalism, which works better than diversity.

Scientists have their method reversed: they look at details, and then draw conclusions about the whole, forgetting that a detail serving to represent the whole has only partial truth value and is inherently misleading.

If they were a bit more attentive, they would notice that genetic information contradicts this view entirely, because we can see how European groups pursued homogeneous breeding practices through the ages.

The paradox of group genetic interests and group selection is that, if natural selection picks traits that survive, why do people choose to breed within their tribe rather than without? The safe liberal conclusion is that they only did so because they were geographically isolated, but history shows us that this is not even true, since tribes contacted each other all the time.

A more sensible view is that people choose others like them for the health of the offspring and from the knowledge that, if people who share more of their DNA survive, they are closer to reproductive success than if they invest their DNA into people who do not have any of the common substructure that makes a group similar to one another.

How, for example, can I be 50% identical to my father if I’m 99.8% identical to all living humans? The answer is that I am not 50% identical to my father; rather, I am 50% identical to my father by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of all living humans. If all living humans are 99.8% genetically identical then I’m 99.9% identical to my father. Jayman’s argument that two random co-ethnics aren’t related fails to factor this into account: a calculation of relation needs a baseline level of relatedness for comparison. So he’s correct in stating that two co-ethnics are not similar to one another- but only by comparison to the baseline level of relatedness of their entire population.

Since the ethnic kinship coefficient has been worked out to the equivalent of half siblings, it may be useful to frame the issue in those terms. If I am 25% identical to my half sibling by comparison to any other co-ethnic, it is because there is a quarter of my genome that I share with my half sibling due to our common descent. Specifically, our mutual descent from our mutual parent gives us a specific combination of genes that nobody else is likely to have. 25% of my genome is 100% identical to his alleles of the same genes and the other 75% is as similar to his as it is to any other co-ethnic, but taken as an average across my entire genome, any given allele is 25% more likely to be shared with him than it is everyone else in our race.

The ethnic kinship coefficient works in an uncannily similar way. Instead of inheriting those 25% identical genes from recent common ancestors, the two co-ethnics inherit the same genes due to the fact that people of their race usually have those genes (think melanin, keratin, microcephalin, EDAR, HERC2, or any other gene for which the frequency of alleles differs overpopulation).

All animals act in self-interest. People, as a type of animal, do the same. Human groups also do the same, and they identify themselves by the metric of “more similar than different.” This means that they share traits and pass them on together, which is why people choose to breed within a group if they are healthy and confident.

Because of this shared genetic heritage, your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This allows the group to choose isolation, as advanced societies did over the ages, and then focus on selective breeding for the best of those traits. Smart observers will notice that this mirrors the conservative formula of realism plus transcendentalism, or a desire to improve quality in the way that nature does.

In addition, there is another factor. Social capital consists of all of the knowledge passed along by family, friends and society to the youngsters of the next generation. For this to work, the new generation must be roughly similar to the old and with the same inclinations, or the social capital will be incomprehensible or seem irrelevant to them.

Natural selection does not reward the person who wins the fistfight. It rewards the traits that are found in the individuals that reproduce the most. In groups, this means that shared traits are the ones that won out, and therefore, the traits that will continue to propagate.

Denial of ethnic group interest and group selection are motivated by a fundamentally egalitarian desire, which is to insist that all people are compatible and that race is an accident of history. Common sense, logic, history itself and the genetic data show that this is an illusory theory.

Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?

As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”

The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.

The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.

In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.

Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.

Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.

It’s easy to blame the anti-immigrant impulses driving so much Trump administration policy on basic bigotry. But a recent line of research has asked whether this visceral disdain for outsiders is not just psychological, but biological.

Look, what an interesting shift! Instead of blaming us for bigotry, the Left has changed tack and is blaming us for our ignorance again. Their paternalistic condescending viewpoint is that we primitive dirt people are simply in the grips of a basic instinct that helps us avoid disease.

Spray those immigrants down with Lysol, they reason, and diversity can suddenly work again! The empire is saved.

Not so fast. The classic Leftist gambit is to choose one detail of many about a situation, turn it into a symbol, and make it stand for the whole. If you dislike getting run over by red cars, the reason for your fear is the color red, not the speeding ton of metal heading right for you. If we can just psychoanalyze that fear of red-ness out of you…

There are many reasons that people dislike diversity, and they tend to overlap with one another as do the parts in all instincts, but we can boil them down to this:

Disease. As noted above, there is a fear of foreign disease. Outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis and other diseases in the American Southwest suggest that this fear is entirely reasonable.

Genetic Interests. Very few want to admit this, but most people want their children to look like them and their ancestors. What has worked in the past usually continues working, and most sane people take pride in what their families did because they have achievements, no matter how small, that they can point to. In addition, people want their children to carry on their own traits that they find valuable. In a group, people are co-related and so can share traits and pass them on together, which is why groups break away from larger populations and settle alone; your neighbors pass on your genes as well as their own. This way, they can optimize themselves through selective breeding, and then pass on those traits. This is no different than teaching future generations about the right way to do things, or values or any other social capital, except that genetics is innate, and so provides a starting point for future generations that gives them a chance to succeed.

Logic. Here is the big one: logical fact is stronger than fact, because fact is assessed from data and necessarily streamlined, which misses details which may turn out to be more crucial than the ones included in the calculus. We know that all animals act in self-interest; people do the same. This means that human groups, also, act in self-interest, which much like the goals of an individual organism, consists of reproducing themselves and raising strong offspring. In order to do this, they must bash down every other group in the area or absorb them, which requires dominating the political, cultural, philosophical and religious life of their new country. Diversity creates nothing but enmity because these groups are competing under the guise of coexisting. People who endorse diversity are classic pacifists who would rather lose than engage in conflict, and so they rationalize diversity as “peace” when it is in fact the exact opposite.

Trust the Left to continue alternating between calling us ignorant, bigoted and afraid as their means of perpetuating the rationalization of the ongoing conflict that is diversity. For the Left, there is only one truth and it is called equality, and so all other language merely serves as a pretext for advancing equality over the natural order which is its opposite.

Piper Harron has a PhD in Maffs! She writes for academic journals. Piper Harron has GrrlPower!

She tells us vile cis-gendered Caucasoids to quit our jobs. Give them to queer, racial minority females. Over time, I think we should. Make Piper Harron actually have to do math and run something. It shouldn’t go any worse than having the local special needs class play one of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos. But anyway, here’s her idiot screed.

Not to alarm you, but I probably want you to quit your job, or at least take a demotion. Statistically speaking, you are probably taking up room that should go to someone else. If you are a white cis man (meaning you identify as male and you were assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power. That’s right, please quit. Too difficult? Well, as a first step, at least get off your hiring committee, your curriculum committee, and make sure you’re replaced by a woman of color or trans person. Don’t have any in your department? HOW SHOCKING.

She is correct. You should step away from the system. Do not work for those who systemically seek to purge you. You are their platform and fuel to their parasitism. Now you just *know* that you didn’t build that! And guess what that paragon of original thought, Barack Obama would tell you? you didn’t build that.

Fair enough. Now let’s look at what Piper Harron didn’t build. Fred Reed has a long, but not all-inclusive list. Here, this will help Piper figure out what she now needs to reinvent when we down tools, walk off, and put her in charge of maintenance.

Now why would she reinvent all these things? They are just there. They are around us. Just push out the whitey-Huwhites, march through the institutions, and you can coast on all that stuff that they supposedly didn’t build. Well, Piper, why don’t you go explain that to all Soviet Conscripts who got made to harvest potatoes under Gorbachev to prevent a massive Russian famine throughout the CCCP? Why don’t you go tell that to the Venezuelans that are losing 10 lbs a year under Socialismo? The calories don’t don’t just get burned – they get Holodomored!

All of those things that you successfully steal by yelling “You didn’t build that!” They will crash around your stupid, SJW ears in ruin. You will maintain what you steal about as well as The Ostrogoths maintained the granduer that was Rome. They didn’t. You will not succeed either.

This is why Socialism is both malignant and evil. Socialism leads to one thing. One thing only. It leads to death. God hates Socialism. He forbabe it in the commandment that he gave to Moses below.

So yes, White Man. Resign. Move away from Piper Harron. Force her to make as many hard, complicated decisions that she is thoroughly too stupid and arrogant to ever succeed at as you possibly can. She will do the gene pool a favor, make those decisions terribly, and with any decency or luck; eradicate herself and anyone else stupid and ingenuous to rely upon her judgement for anything. Then we can busy and rebuild all that stuff we didn’t build in the first place.

As the new millennium dawned, it became clear that a sea change in attitudes among the people of the West was underway. While in the long term this seems to be a shift from bureaucratic and artificial societies to more organic and hierarchical ones, the rising battlefield presented political correctness as a target of opportunity because in recent years, it has been the primary weapon of the Leftist takeover of Western Civilization.

This phenomenon has become most visible on the campus, where a new cadre of seemingly all-powerful student groups are demanding — and winning — increasing concessions from school administrators, usually because no one wants to appear to be allied with horrible racists, sexists and classists in our increasingly Leftist cultural milieu. Scott Greer tackles this topic with a book written for everyday conservatives but which applies the wisdom of the underground right through a careful recounting of the events leading to this new norm.

Greer begins by diving into the most recent events at universities which show the insanity of political correctness, then explores related fields in race-based politics and false rape accusations, then delves deeper into the theory and political goals of the PC movement. In doing so, he points out that PC does not aim toward positive goals, but negative ones, namely shattering the power of white people, conservatives, realists and other non-Leftists in the university setting.

In other words, it is a classic power grab through public shaming of dissidents — but in this case, your skin is your uniform, and you can be a dissident through simply failing to agree with what the PC overlords say; actively opposing them is not necessary. By implication and revelation of a conspiracy of details, Greer unveils the fundamentally Soviet nature of Political Correctness.

What’s happening at campuses is not an isolated affair — it is a result of what is happening in America as a whole. The sense of shared values and culture among Americans is vanishing rapidly, at the same time many feel isolated from their communities and families. Mass immigration has dramatically altered our country’s demographics, while multiculturalism has created a confusing landscape of competing visions for what it means to be an American. Many citizens see our national society as one of millions of alienated atoms living in a continental strip mall, not interconnected denizens living happily together in one proud country.

Thus, they turn to alternative forms of identity. A real American identity — one not entirely composed of platitudes about “equality and opportunity — is becoming a thing of the past. The ones who cling to it, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s and the press’s treatment of Donald Trump’s supporters, are considered racist buffoons who need to die off. The momentum of the present is veering toward tribalism, not unity. And the only thing keeping all the tribes of the Left unified right now is their shared animosity toward whites. (159)

We can see Greer’s thesis here: the success of the Left in advancing class warfare and multiculturalism has destroyed any unifying sense of culture, and so groups are going their own way, which has fragmented the Left, requiring that it cook up a new enemy in order to unite its ranks, and it has chosen “privilege theory”: because white people have “privilege” in historically-white societies, they are the only ones who can be racist, and therefore — by implication, of course — the only way to end racism is to eliminate whites.

This is a more complex analysis of the “anti-racism = anti-white” meme that has been floating around, but Greer is correct go into the nuance because it reveals how Leftism is a kind of inertia which by destroying existing social order, creates conditions under which it has no choice but to explode like a supernova and become fully totalitarian. The success of the Left is its actual enemy, but it needs a scapegoat, just like the Communists needed kulaks and the Nazis needed Jews.

By taking this balanced approach, Greer avoids tackling the historical questions which at this point are so muddied by centuries of political fighting that there is no way to even approach them in an unbiased manner, and instead looks at political correctness the way a sociologist would. Increasing Balkanization of the West means the need for a scapegoat, and PC found it in white men.

In order to reach this point, the book narrates some of the recent history of political correctness, including various incidents which — when removed from the context of the Leftist media — stand out as appalling. Even though to those of us who recognize a consistency in Leftist behavior from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union, the blatant inversion of concepts such as “fairness” and “equality” into persecution of those who do not need these things shows us the human animal at its worst: a snarling beast, enraged that any may succeed, thus demanding that all be brought down to a lower level through the social power of the word “equality.”

The most important thing to remember is that the favored form of diversity isn’t necessarily “the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization,” as Merriam-Webster would put it. Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around. Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean “white only.” An all-black dorm is a sign of diversity, but an all-white fraternity is a sign of Jim Crow. That double standard is easier to understand once you think of higher education’s commitment to ethnic diversity as not one upholding the strict definition of the term. (16)

No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination maintains a thoroughly professional view of the situation, avoiding partisanship as much as possible, in order to dig far enough into the headlines to see the motivation behind political correctness and how it is being applied, which ordinary people will not hear from the media or from a single source.

Greer uses an investigative journalism approach. He begins with a single incident, then digs into similar incidents, then looks at the parties involved and their statements, and contrasts these to public statements made by schools and organizations. In doing so, the reader can witness the application of the theory sliding away from the theory as time goes on. The cognitive dissonance effect is erased through this method.

While No Campus For White Men uses a provocative title, it is in fact a mild book, with flashes of humor and cultured alertness to the actual goals of institutions versus what they have become scattered throughout. It makes for a quick read and a good refresher on the politically correct disasters of recent years. For any reader from innocent novice through cynical veteran, this book provides a cornerstone of a practical attack on PC culture.